Well, the month of “Newt-vember” is only hours away from its departure, and despite the ever-shifting sands of time, the former Speaker seems to be sitting pretty atop the GOP field of 2012 presidential candidates in many national polls as well as in most polls of key early states. Unlike Herman Cain, the Speaker has already dealt with his tawdry past, rendering it old news in the minds of most primary voters. Unlike Rick Perry, Speaker Gingrich can actually articulate his ideas using complete sentences, and does so while turning every statement into a component of a much larger idea. And unlike Michele Bachmann, the Speaker won’t be making outlandish claims anytime soon about the side-effects of common pharmaceuticals. As such, candidates who would benefit from the expiration of Newt’s candidacy may soon find themselves on an 11th hour mission to torpedo a man who is about to earn the moniker of Republican frontrunner for next year’s presidential nomination.
If Newt does somehow manage to ride a wave of “Newtopia” into the new year, clinching the nomination by besting Gov. Romney in the early states and then beating the Bay State executive in a one-on-one race in the later, delegate-rich states, the presidential field will suffer from a vacuum so significant that one or more minor party candidates will almost certainly enter the race. Like it or not, Speaker Gingrich is viewed by both the GOP establishment and by many elements of the base as being damaged goods. His personal foibles are known but present, and they will almost certainly provide fodder for Team Obama when the president inevitably goes negative down the road. The Speaker will turn 69 in 2012, making his candidacy reminscent of past “early-bird special” candidates, such as Bob Dole and John McCain, both of whom lost to much younger opponents. And while Gingrich should be the sort of candidate who could thread the needle between the wonks and the jocks, so to speak, the wonks view Newt as an unserious panderer, and the jocks see Newt as a creature of the Beltway. Neither side will be quick to warm up to him once the shock of an Obama/Gingrich race wears off.
All of that is why I suspect that such a race will open the door to at least one major third-party candidate, and perhaps even give the nation a 1948-style scenario, with two such candidates entering the race and leaping into serious contention. This is the sort of race that would have Michael Bloomberg, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson all looking at a non-traditional path to victory. The most likely entry would be Bloomberg, who would probably reason that he could put together an Electoral College majority by winning all of the nation’s big states with large urban centers, including California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. At that point, the question is which of the quirky, anti-establishment conservatives decides to run as well, representing the “true voice of Middle America.” Given Gary Johnson’s relative youth and treatment during this year’s presidential debates, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine the former New Mexico governor snagging the Libertarian Party nomination and running as the candidate of the Far West.
While this may seem far-fetched, it actually strikes me as a likely occurrence if Newt is nominated. An Obama/Newt matchup would leave scores of voters unhappy with their choices, similar to the aftermath of Gov. Clinton winning the Democratic nomination in 1992. At least there, Clinton was a fresh face. And despite all of that, a Bush/Clinton race initially rubbed so many people the wrong way that a self-financing third-party candidate was polling ahead of both major party candidates by mid-1992. Obama v. Gingrich, it seems, would be Bush v. Clinton on crack. Indeed, an Obama/Gingrich race bears a much better resemblance to 1948, when an unpopular president, Harry Truman, and an aloof Republican nominee, Tom Dewey, were challenged to their right by Strom Thurmond and to their left by Henry Wallace in what amounted to a four-party general election. That led to an upset victory for the embattled president, following a general election campaign that went down in history as one of the nation’s least predictable races for the White House. As such, if Newt does somehow manage to become next year’s Republican presidential nominee, it seems wise to anticipate a race that is anything but conventional.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
I would go third party if Newt is the nominee. We had a lousy pick last election and I think it’s time we get some competence.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Gingrich is hypocritical?selfishly man. Married three times, abandon two former wife, especially the first, have cancer. Maybe he will abandon third, if he think it’s need
November 30th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
There’s an AWFUL lot of IF in all that analysis. There’s a LONG way to go from Newt being ahead in the polls right now and actually getting the nomination.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Sign up for John Birch Society fax system to oppose indefinite detention
Support Rand Paul’s effort to stop McCain
November 30th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Go Bloomberg?…
November 30th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
All I can say is, this is a sad, sad year.
Even though I’m a political junkie, I’m glad that I’ve become jaded enough to accept in stride the notion that our President come Jan. 2013 will be somewhere between mediocre and abysmal. The system selects for that. If we ever again have a great President, it will be less than an accident; it will be in the face of a system that favors liars, scoundrels, and charlatans.
I hate sounding like all the drama queens but I can’t quite shake the feeling that democracy may soon enter its final spasms in this country, and all the good men and women are staying away, disgusted by our putrid excuse for government and politics.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
6.
You may be jaded but I think you’re right.
Very depressing.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
#6 Matt and #7 Boomer,
I concur.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
As long as Ron Paul is in the race, this race is not depressing at all.
John Birch Freedom Index has repeatibly ranked Paul most conservative politician year and year.
According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937 out of all 3320 politician rated in the system.
The voters do what Fox News tells them rather than actually paying attention to who is the best candidate, and the best candidate is Ron Paul.
The race will only be depressing after Paul drops out or is eliminated.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
It’ll be Newt as our nominee, who’s not in my top 4 or 5, BUT more importantly, is not in my bottom 4.
We do need a superb and fearless communicator like a Huck, a Cain, a Bachmann, or a Newt, THAT I know..
BTW, Just received this tweet from a Newt supporter >>>>>>
If you’re a Republican and think that a FoxNews interview is rough, you might be a Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Newt Gingrich: The Aspiring Americano President
November 30th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Cheer up, Matt. Mitt WILL be GREAT president. You watch.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Breaking: Lin Wood to appear on CNN tomorrow. Says he has bombshells.
Gloria Allred and other false accusers be afraid.
Be VERY afraid.
Your time’s up!
November 30th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
I always try to look at the positive over the negative. I learned that from watching Reagan. If Newt is our nominee and does lose to Obama, I look at it this way. Chances are we will keep the house and win the Senate, so, we might be able to stop Obama from doing further damage. Plus, chances are we would have a stronger line up of candidates in 2016 than we do now in 2012. In 2016, we might have Christie, Palin, Jindal, Ryan, McDonnell, to name a few. I would add Rand Paul and Marco Rubio to the list but I think they will be too busy with re-election bids of their Senate seats.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Compare Gingrich, I think Clinton is good husband
November 30th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
MWS,
I’ve been feeling that way myself. I don’t worry so much about the “gridlock” that the media bemoans. Yes, it’s worse than ever and never in American history have the two parties imposed such ideological unanimity. It’s more than a little odd that a staunch pro-lifer with a perfect record on guns and a history of tax cutting (Huntsman) is now unacceptably moderate. But like Scalia, I usually view gridlock as a feature, not a bug, of American Democracy. When most of what government does is bad, I can only be so upset about its inability to do anything. But in this era where voters have access to more information than ever: when Senators aren’t elected by state legislatures but by voters; when nominees are selected almost exclusively in primaries and caucuses and not in conventions; when elections go on for ages and voters get to know candidates better than they know their grandparents; in short, when the average voter is more in control of the Democratic process than any time in history, things are going to pot. It seems we’re worse at this Democracy business than we were 220 years ago. And we wonder why the founders were fans of a Republic, not a Democracy?
November 30th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
The forgotten words of Newt http://pinterest.com/pin/226094843762437834/
November 30th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Craig, it’s fun watching you start to shift to yet another candidate. I’m glad your shifting now. It gives the “Craig Effect” time to kick in and sink Gingrich’s campaign.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
If a Gingrich nomination comes to pass, I think you are exactly right, Dave. It will give rise to a serious third party candidate. In fact, I think the Republican Party could be facing more than a third party challenge. They could be facing a very serious and damaging split and it may occur no matter who gets the nomination.
Currently there are two elements of the party battling for control. Obviously the elements are the establishment folks that are accustomed to calling all the shots and are unwilling to relinquish power and the Teavangelical crowd that feel they’ve taken control of the party and should now be in charge.
I see the two elements becoming increasingly polarized and hostile towards one another as evidenced by the comments of posters here at Race42012. We’ve been labeling the two sides as the Rombots and the Romnots but I think the fight goes way beyond Mitt Romney. Romney is too good-natured and nice of a guy to engender the kind of hatred all by himself that is out there. No, it’s about more than Mitt. It’s about whether the New England, blue-blooded, country club set (exemplified by Romney) will continue to call the shots or whether the pitchfork wielding Southern insurgents will get the reigns. It’s the civil war of the Republican Party and although I am characterizing it as geographically based, it actually isn’t. It is ideologically based but one element is perceived to be represented by the north and the other by the south.
Romney is easy to paint as the enemy for the later set but their hero has yet to emerge. For a while it was the moose-hunting former Governor of Alaska, then the tax attorney from Minnesota. The cowboy from Texas was up for a spell (as he likes to say) and then it was Mr. 999. Now, it seems it’s the former Speaker from Georgia.
The party needed a candidate that could hold these two factions together. I’m not sure they have one and without one, I see potential for a split. As someone who always thought of themselves as a conservative Republican but is now totally ashamed of the antics and lack of seriousness coming from fellow Americans that also ascribe that title to themselves, a split has real appeal. I know it means we lose and Barack Obama gets another term at bat which could well kill us all but if we survive, we might end up with three parties. Those would be the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Teas with the old Republican Party now morphed into a party hawkish on defense, frugal with the money but more socially moderate. The new Tea Party occupies ground once inhabited exclusively by the Libertarians and that allows the Democrats to move even further to the left because the new Republicans would become the natural home for today’s “Independents”.
Actually it might not be such a bad thing except in 2012 we’d lose.
I’d be able to again proudly call myself a Republican.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
eric,
Indeed.
MWS,
On that note: as I’ve mentioned, I’ve been thinking about becoming a Catholic for ages but I held off on RCIA again this year. Lots of reasons for that. But one thing that bothers me: how is Newt Gingrich a Catholic? I’m a big fan of Evelyn Waugh and started reading his Sword of Honour trilogy awhile ago. Waugh’s main character, Guy Crouchback, is divorced and unable to remarry. Waugh himself had a similar difficulty and was forced to get his first marriage annulled when he entered the church. How does the Church deal with characters like Gingrich, twice divorced and already married upon entry? Is it possible that Newt’s gotten both of his prior marriages annulled? Is his current marriage not recognized? And it his marriages have been annulled, does the church just hand out annulments like candy on Halloween? I’m not interested, exactly, in official Vatican policy here (which I have a vague sense of) but the practical workings. I’m disinclined to join a church that just disregards its own rules with a sort of wink and nod.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
20. Dude..Ted Kennedy was a Catholic.
Tom freakin’ Harkin, the defender and champion of partial birth abortions, is a Catholic…if the church can take them – Newt is a piece of cake.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
DO YOU ALL EXPECT high employment and Bad economy bad still in nov 2012 still?
November 30th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
It just dawned on the me, if the newt gets the GOP nomination the indy ticket could very well be Bloomberg/Huntsman…i have no doubt there will be a strong indy choice if newt is the nominee but those two pairing up work great. The problem is the timing, things need to get rolling fast for the indy movement…probably start the legwork if newt somehow wins n hamp but more likely the decision to run indy will be made post flordia primary. Of course, i don’t see newt getting the nomination and i suspect romney will be it but my barometer is how romney supporters view huck as a possible veep pick for romney…the more they like the idea, the better romney will perform in the primary, the more they are repulsed by the idea, the better the non romney person will do in the gop primary.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
19.
Very well said.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
#20 MEM,
Marianne Gingrich said in her Esquire interview that Newt got their marriage annuled so that he and the choir-girl could get married.
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/newt-gingrich-0910?page=all
November 30th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Catholicism is heresy.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
19,
I think this is the last GOP race where the old guard should be running. The young guns should take over for either 2016 or 2020. As I mentioned in my post # 14, guys like Mitt, Newt and Ron Paul are the past, GOPs like Christie, Palin, Rubio, Jindal, Ryan, Thune, Haley, Cantor, Rand Paul, McDonnell, Pawlenty are the future of this party.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
23.
This is just one Romney supporter speaking but I would take Huck as a VP choice in a heartbeat. He’s a very skilled politician and would balance the ticket in a number of ways. He would also absolutely destroy Biden in a debate. Granted, not a high bar, but Huck is a very good debater.
I never really gave a lot of thought to a Huck VP slot because I thought that the wounds between the two were too deep but they seemed to have come to terms. I also thought Huck was done with elective politics and I’m still not convinced he’s not.
But if he would take it I would happily support it.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
“How’d you know he was irritated?” O’Reilly asked. “Did he slap you, or what’d he do?”
“Well, he just made it clear at the end of the interview,” Baier responded, later adding that Romney had thought the interview was “overly aggressive.”
“Wow,” said a rather surprised O’Reilly.
“As we were walking in the ‘walk and talk,’” Baier continued, “and then after we finished, he went to his holding room and then came back and said he didn’t like the interview and thought it was uncalled for.”
Mitt came back from his holding room to tell Bret that the interview was uncalled for????
Are you insane Mitt?
What a joke!
I always knew you had anger problems but that is a complete separation from reality.
It was a tough interview, but to go off on Bret like that…after the interview…..HOLY SMOKE.
Ok Matt “MWS” & Matthew E. Miller,
Now please tell me again after reading this that Mitt Romney is the serious candidate in this race….
Go take some anger management classes Mitt.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
#23 Blue,
That may well be the pairing we need to hold off the kind of party split that I theorized above.
A Mitt and Mike team could unite North and South, blue blood and blue collar and hold the Republicans together. If they could win and serve together for eight years, they may diffuse the current rivalry in the ranks and hold the party together.
While it would be totally unorthodox, Mitt might benefit from announcing Huck as his VP now if Huck would be willing to do it. The beauty of Huck, unlike Rubio, is that it would percieved as a win for the Teavangelicals because clearly Mike Huckabee would not be anyone that normally would make Mitt’s short list. They’d know he’s only doing it for them. The downside for Huck is Newt may win and he would’ve taken himself out of the Veep-stakes for a Gingrich candicacy.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
I’m feeling the same way. I’m planning my future betting that Americans don’t have the gonads or the brains to avoid going down in flames with the rest of the nanny states.
Will there ever again be a decent, qualified person in their right mind who would want to run for president?
November 30th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
29.
Gee, Smack. You get some excited when Newt goes after the moderators in every debate, how can you upset by this?
In case you haven’t noticed, Romney and most of his supporters are sick and tired of the flip flop BS. It’s been asked, reasked and asked 100 more times. Is this what Romney is running on? Did Baier ask him anything about why he was running or his plan for governing? This was not an interview you see a frontrunner get in the final days before a primary, this was a hit job.
When Baier has an interview with Mr. Sunshine, aka Newt, and spends the interview grilling him about his flip flops and his lobbying and his social con issues and Newt smiles and compliments him on his suit, get back to me.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
November 30th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
No wonder Mitt doesn’t go on with Wallace..or go back on Meet the Press.
The man can’t be challenged……he goes bezerk.
I apologize for taking shots at the Mitt Camp for their early decision to keep Mitt away from challenging interviews.
Team Mitt was correct….keep Mitt away.
The man can’t handle it.
HOLY SMOKE
Mitt is a weaker candidate than I ever thought.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
34 – And now Mitt is caught in an endless loop. It’s like what happens to the computer at the end of WarGames.
The only way he turns this around is to get out there….and every time he gets out there he reminds everyone of what they dislike about him.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Hopefully for the Rombots, Mitt breaks the cycle before his campaign explodes.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Boomer,
Mitt went back to Bret after he went into the holding room….that is quite different than what Newt or any other candidate has done.
Mitt does not have the temperment to be President.
And for Bret to go on O’Reilly and dislcose that this happen in front of millions of GOP voters is a shot back at Mitt.
How stupid of Mitt to act this way.
But the man can’t help it..can he?
It looks like the candidate who is spotless has a spot…doesn’t it?
Yep.
Mitt can’t hold his anger.
To go after Bret after the interview would be so funny…if it wasn’t so depressing.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Smack,
He did the same thing in ’08, after an interview with a radio host in Iowa. I would guess he didn’t know he was being filmed here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5sXcdiL1wE&feature=player_embedded
November 30th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Boomer Says:
November 30th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
29.
Gee, Smack. You get some excited when Newt goes after the moderators in every debate, how can you upset by this?
Truer words were never spoken. Newt seems ticked off during each debate. I remember a few debates ago even Smack thought Newt seemed to talk down to the moderator. And really, is there some opinion by the masses that Mitt has an anger problem? Didn’t we see SNL make fun of how polite he is? I doubt others will conclude from this that Mitt is a hot head. Nice try smack…
November 30th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Krauthammer:
November 30th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
SMACK….I have a bumper sticker for you:
“It’s all my fault. I supported Newt”
November 30th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
If Mitt is a hot head, why did SNL make fun of his politeness? The truth is that the feeling about Mitt by most is that he is very polite, almost too polite.
Nobody will conclude from this that Mitt is a hot head.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
race42012 front page posters are in full panic mode over Newt! this is fun to read
November 30th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
So now saying that you thought a grilling during an interview was not a good interview is blowing up??? Come on Smack? Mr Mcpherson complains at every single debate about the questions (except for the last one) and their stupidity and yet not a single attack was levied against him.
Don’t be a homer, you tend to be a cheerleader and it can get annoying, but most of the time you can be objective. Example: My take is that the interview was not great, but it wasn’t bad. It was a wash in my opinion.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
42 – I dunno. The interview looked bad and O’Reilly has a lot of viewers. Somthing like 3M on an average night. And then it spreads to the other FOX shows and from there to the other political shows.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
37.
Oh bull. Newt’s temper is legendary, he was dumping on the dumb talking heads at FOX just yesterday in SC. Palin refused to give interviews to anyone but the husband of one of her handler’s, Greta.
I’ll bet you when more comes out this was set up as an interview to talk about Romney’s plan for the election and it turned into an inquisition. This is why Romney doesn’t do a lot of interviews. They are all the same. He has a extremely detailed economic plan. Did Baier ask about it? He has laid out a plan on entitlement reform. DId Baier ask about it? Did he ask Romney about his plan to cut government spending and spur job growth? Foreign policy?
None of that . It was all about flip flops and how can the people trust you.
I know you love to slam Romney any chance you get and then act like it pains you so. But I don’t blame Romney a bit for being angry. If you don’t like it then don’t vote for Romney.
Oh, thats right. You won’t no matter what.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
44 – Mr. McPherson is man enough to call out the debate mods on the fly.
Mitt waited until after the interview and then came back to bitch and moan.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
As great as this site is, it really is a sight to behold when half of the FPPers and frequent commenters go into a complete tail spin now that Romney is faltering again.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
I wouldn’t say romney is in a complete tail spin but he needs drastic action ASAP. I personally think he should offer huck his veep spot right now and announce the ticket, than run through the primary as a pair. The downside is the ticket could get stale…not to mention, i’m assuming huck would accept, if he didn’t, ouch. Oh well, as for bret baier, i’m not surprised at all by his actions.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
I think as Newt is rising we’re now going to see Romney’s biggest challenge.
Yep. Newt is like the mega boss at the end of one of those 1980s NES games.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
47 – According to Smack – he “bitched and moaned” during the debate as well.
Keep moving the goal posts…
November 30th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
I now understand the Mitt campaign.
Avoid all cattle calls.
Avoid all Tea Party events.
Avoid all Family Leader events.
Avoid all 2nd admendment events.
Avoid all Pro-Life events.
Avoid all tough challenging interviews.
Mitt can’t take the heat.
Mitt should stay out of the Oval Office.
To go after Bret..after Mitt went into the Holding room to cool off…is something else. You just know that Mitt’s people couldn’t even hold him back.
This is what happens when you surround yourself with “yes” men all your life.
The ROMBOTS have been going after Newt for his personal failings for 3 straight weeks…
..well…guess what.
Mitt is a SPAZ!
Could not even hold it together long enough to do an interview, and to get out of the Fox offices, before he blew up.
Priceless.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
51 – No one is moving the goal posts. He was combative throughout, but only after the camera were off did he actually say that Baier was “overly aggresive.”
November 30th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
jaaron,
I didn’t slam Mitt for his interview yesterday.
I thought it was good he showed some spit and vigor.
But we are talking about after the interview.
No moving goal posts…..just lack of understanding on the ROMBOTS part it was so stupid for Mitt to do this.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Can’t wait to see SNL’s version of the interview. They have been waiting for Mitt to lose it.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
29 – I know you are just being your disingenuous self, but for those out there with a little integrity it is obvious why Romney was irritated. The DNC put one of the most dishonest ads out in a long time and Baer treats it as if it is serious criticism and presses Romney to respond to the specific fallacious attacks? Seriously?
That interview was a joke and anyone with any type of objectivity would recognize that. The attacks were absurd. Now, how do you think Newt would have responded under such a scenario? Your hypocrisy speaks volumes about your character Smack daddy. Good think no one cares what you have to say.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
After the interview…..after Mitt went back into the holding room.
After the interview…..after Mitt went back into the holding room.
After the interview…..after Mitt went back into the holding room.
After the interview…..after Mitt went back into the holding room…
…Mitt couldn’t hold it together.
Do you understand now ROMBOTS???
Totally different than during debates or interviews.
You just can’t give Mitt those Internal Poll numbers before he goes on TV….don’t they know that yet?
November 30th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
34 – Signed Newt Gingrich. There is a HUGE difference between being challenged and being pressured to respond to lies.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Bret Baier: Romney complained that my questions were “uncalled for” (Video)
http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/11/bret-baier-romney-complained-that-my.html
Plus, video of Mitt blowing up at an Iowa radio host following an interview in ’07. Mitt later complained that he was on hidden camera.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
I don’t have a problem with any of the ? asked to romney but i don’t think bret baier should have asserted himself into the story by going on another show an saying romney came to him saying the ? were to tough…guess its those types who land the tv gigs but i don’t like that type of behavior.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Rombots,
Huck is not joining the Romney trainwreck.
He WILL support OUR nominee once the primaries decide.
Huck has made that clear.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
54- you really thought it was a good interview? I didn’t think it was that great. And I thought I heard you say on other posts that it was not good. His answers weren’t that great. He didn’t take the answer and run with it into a positive. He usually can do that, he didn’t. I think you’re being disingenuous.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
When Fox News starts playing the Ron Paul ad against Gingrich over and over and over and then makes Newt answer to every charge in that ad (which is completely true, by the way), then I will listen to RomNot morons whining about Mitt.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
If Newt is the cats meow, why did all of these Newt fans barely start supporting the guy in the last 3-4 weeks or so. I mean he has basically been running, or talking about running, since 2007. And yet Smack, Tele, and others talk about Newt like he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
And what kind of journalist goes and cries about a candidate’s response on national television? That is just low and classless. The fact that RomNots think that is normal shows the depth of their delusions.
Fox News has been on the offensive against Romney for almost a year now. This is nothing new.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
62 – Smack isn’t exactly the most consistent poster here.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
jax,
“Now, how do you think Newt would have responded under such a scenario”
If Newt went after Bret the way Mitt did, I would have called him a baby.
I would have told Newt to stop it.
Remember, I’m the guy who keeps reminding Newt that he should keep smiling and not go after the Moderators during the debates.
Go ahead…..read the debate threads.
Mitt showed himself to be a SPAZ,,and that is not good….especially with Fox News.
And, yes..many people care what I have to say…including you.
That is why you spend so much time commenting on my comments.
The spotless Mitt has a spot.
It’s called anger.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
By the way, I want to apologize to everyone for the annoying comments and my homerism. I can’t help it, I am seeking help.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
59. Wow!
Willard is such a whiner. The conservatives have gotten inside his head.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Yep, I’m sure that Mitt being “mad” at Brett Bair will be far worse than this ad about Newt today, posted on the Drudgereport.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=youtu.be
November 30th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Jax,
If Mitt can’t handle Fox News he can’t handle the Oval Office.
I knew Mitt had some anger issues…..we all did. But this is baffling…to say the least.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
55,
That might provide some much needed comic relief. This has been the worst strech of Romney’s campaign by far. Much of it is not self-inflicted, some of it, like this interview and the aftermath, is. I think the most telling thing is the posts of a few of the Romney supporters. They range from paranoid to unintentionally comedic to almost unhinged. They know politics and they are not stupid and they are worried, and they probably should be
November 30th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
I have no principles or understanding of the issues. I just support candidates that are seriously jacked up, because like attracts like.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Smack, you smack of bizarre desperation. I am struggling to get your point. A holding room, sounds like prison. So….Mitt was in prison? OR you have angst he thought about what he was going to say before he said it? Can you just stop being a hater long enough to see how dopey you sound.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Smack – you really thought that it was good interview? Seriously?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Mitt has anger issues now. Is that it? Good grief, his wife would have left him if that were the case. He says “golly” instead of talking like Biden or Obama’s wife. Anger issues is what you’re taking a stand on now? Go take a break. Have some pizza. Cry a little. Get it together, man.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
I guarantee you that if someone as bright and as talented as Mitt were to switch from a pro-life to a pro-choice position, he’d be getting all kinds of praise from the media and from the left. He’d be welcomed with open arms and with pats on the back for abandoning such a narrow view.
But when someone switches from a pro-choice to a pro-life position, he is met with derision and contempt.
Abortion is the only major flip I’ve observed Mitt make. I think Mitt could have handled himself better, but you have to feel for the guy. A constant barrage of criticism from the DNC and Foxnews and Rush Limbaugh. You’d think the guy was running on raising taxes, the way they talk about him. He’s running a conservative campaign. I’m not sure why there’s so much Romney hatred, from a few.
But I will predict a serious national crisis if we don’t put in a real reformer with character like Mitt. I don’t think Newt has the organizational skill to beat Obama. It’s Mitt or bust.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Smack, stand by your man Gingrich. Stay loyal. Hold the doughboy close to your stony heart. But don’t be a putz about other candidates.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8w7Yz1Htz4
I guess romney could copy W/cheney and tell the reporter what he really thinks about them post interview.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
71,
Overreaching a little
November 30th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
55.
LOL!
Rombots are now stealing other’s handles in desperation. And posting nonsense…
Now that’s funny
November 30th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Amen Sir David. Romney has the right trajectory. Gingrich looks like he’s working a zig-zag so he don’t get shot at.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
CR is seeking help. Get the economy rate by bringing Smack with you. Bulk shock therapy.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
82,
The right trajectory is sideways? If he continues at that trajectory then I hope 20 percent is enough to get the job done
November 30th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
All Newt ever does is complain about the media. Mitt complains about one interview in private and he’s a “hot head”. Do you people listen to yourselves?
I saw the interview, and it was aggressive. I can’t remember any questions that weren’t questions about attacks against Romney. However none of that bothered me. What bothered me is Baer criticizing Romney’s answers in the post-interview.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Don’t vote for Romney…he has…..wait for it…anger issues. He went into the holding area before he returned….wait for it….to tell Brett Baier he did not like the interview. OUtrageous! Shocking! A flip flop from when ROmney DID like interviews. He must be a cultist and a rino….with FAKE hair!?
OK now? Are we purged of the ludicrous-ness? Can we focus? Can the hate fest end, or at least go back over to Red State? Puh-LEEZE.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
67 – How did Mitt go after Bret?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
67 – Talk about mountain out of a grain of salt.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
82 why do you think “abortion OK” to “abortion NOT OK” is sideways? Pretty straightforward, really. Sideways would be a Herman Cain approach to where no one is sure.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
71 – Anger? Seriously? You need to get some help. There was no anger. It was frustration with the cheap shots and Newt would have blown a gasget as he has in the past.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Of all people, Smack you have an anger issue. The all caps. The irrational repitition. Admit it. You’ll feel better. I’ll bet your room has holes all over the drywall. I had a roomie like that once. Barely made it out alive.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
LOL … SNL? No one cares about the interview but RomNots. Truly delusional.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
89,
Sorry I thought you meant trajectory in regard to the polling data
November 30th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Mitt has anger issues! WAAAAHHHHHAHAHHA! No wait, he has no passion. No wait, too much passion! SO much that he’s ANGRY! Somebody stop me I can’t make any sense!!!! Someone keep me from voting for the doughboy just because I can’t tolerate MITT ROMNEY, the 45th president of the US of A!!!!
November 30th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
85 – It wasn’t just aggressive. Aggressive interviews are to be expected. It was full of cheap shots. Newt would have blown a gasget.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Do you know how many interviews Baier and O’Reilly have done with politicians?
How many of these politicians do you think have gone back to either one of them and said “that interview was uncalled for”
Maybe 1….Mitt.
What a baby.
Grow up Mitt.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Now I forgot what this post was really about. No matter, I will vote for Gingrich if it comes down to that. I would vote for a wood post if it came to that. I am HOPING we actually get the right skill set wrapped up in a competent, intelligent skin with American values at the core. I would HOPE for that. But if we are going to goof around again this cycle, fine. Herman Cain, Newt & Callista, it doesn’t matter. Anything’s better than Chairman Obama.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Romney has anger issues now? Does this even begin to pass the laugh test?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Smack, you are resisting treatment. In with the good air, out with the bad.
You want to see a real smackdown from Mitt, watch how he handled those protesters at his Iowa rally. SCHWIIIIING!
November 30th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69460.html
The problem with Mitt Romney isn’t that he wasn’t the father of supply side economics like Newt was. He didn’t help defeat Communism like Newt did.
In other news, I heard that Newt also helped part the Red Sea…
November 30th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Wasn’t it the merry band of Rombots who thought the lampooning of Perry was OH SO HYSTERICAL when it looked like Perry might have offed Mitt’s political career?
My my, how the tables have turned.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
I suspect Romney has some anger built up. Difference with him and Biden or Newt is that he is disciplined. He is rational. He will use that anger to downsize government and drive out the corruption. Can’t wait. Neither can you, trust me.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Sojourner not-so-truthful, the paragon of virtue. Yeah honey.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
I’m very encouraged by this development. A third party could be wonderful in focusing the minds of whomever is elected.
In 1992 Perot ran on deficit reduction.
Clinton raised taxes to cut the deficit in 1993-94. In 1995-96 Republicans restrained spending to cut the deficit.
Without Perot voters we’d likely not have seen the Republican wave of 1994 or the fiscal moderation of Bill Clinton.
I hope 2012 gives us another paradigm shifting third party candidate.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
96 – Probably several. How many of them did they take cheap shots in?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Rombolians. Rombafarians. Rombastics. Rombericans.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Wallace has had many tough interviews with all the candidates….except one.
Mitt Romney.
We now know why.
Mitt can’t take the heat.
I’m glad we found that out now..and not later.
Thank goodness for this vetting process.
Mitt Romney can’t go on Wallace’s show because Mitt can’t control himself. Mitt will be asked the same questions…and more…and tougher.
Stay away Mitt….relax dude.
It’s time to get out of politics.
No more tough questions….you can just save more Olympics and be a hero to your fans.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Prediction; Faced with possibly losing the nomination, Romney announced his Vp candidate (Huckabee), 5 days prior to Super-Tuesday.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
100 – And Romney didn’t save us all from genocide either:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/auschwitz.asp
November 30th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Be Afraid,
Hold it together. Long way to go still
November 30th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
101 – Huh?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Oh no doubt, Smack, I’m sure a politician never pushed back in a Fox interview. The nerve of the upstart. Testy testy, he should be sanctioned by the FDA, NRA, EPA, and FAA.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69498.html
Cain has a very serious charge of a 13 year affair he is being accused of and yet Cain STILL hasn’t sat down with his wife to discuss it.
Who else wouldn’t race home to put your spouse at ease if you were accused of something so awful all over the national media. Geez…
November 30th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
…and the WWF. Did I miss one?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Voting third party will be a vote for Obama. I’ll vote for the Republican nominee. But if it is Gingrich, I am going to need a long scalding hot shower to wash that filth from me. The thought of voting for him makes me sick.
The sad thing is that if Gingrich is the nominee, he will lose in a landslide after Obama shows ads like the one Ron Paul did, and it will work.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
107 – LOL! Mitt has done dozens and dozens of interviews on all the networks. He doesn’t do Sunday shows. He may over the next month, but they aren’t part of his strategy. I have no idea why, but it really has no impact whatsoever. No one watches them anyways. Do you know what kind of ratings they get? He is much better off doing a prime time interview with Hannity or O’Reilly than a Sunday Morning Show. Especially Chris Wallace’s.
Perhaps it has something to do with going to church on Sunday? Probably not though, since Mitt is a heathen devil worshipper.
I imagine he will do several Sunday Shows over the next month and Chris Wallace will get his chance to take his cheap shots like he always does.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
I think it’s interesting Cain thinks there should be no consequences for private life stuff. I don’t think a guy like that can balance the budget and cut spending. The duplicitous thing hasn’t really worked for the American public. Really. At all.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Jaxemer11. That was awesome. Newt has kept us from Genocide too. Geez.. The arrogance of this guy…
November 30th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
115 – Not if the third party candidate gets more votes than the Republican or Democrat.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Why won’t Mitt do an interview with Wallace?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
107:
Actually, I think it’s time for Mitt to bring the heat back to the interviewers. Baier used his time with a man running for president to essentially smear him with lies. Wallace has indicated he has every intention of doing the same, and is running edited clips.
Newt’s attacked the press at every opportunity for gotcha questions. Time for Mitt to start running by the same playbook if they’re not going to be serious.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
120 – He has done several in the past. He hasn’t done any Sunday shows this year, as has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over.
He will likely do one in the next couple months.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
When Newt does it it’s funny.
Given how Romney behaves when he gets slightly shaken it would be an awkward uncomfortable mess.
On second thought, yeah! Fight the power, Mitt!
November 30th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
120 I’ll tell you Smack. Because he has anger issues. Didn’t you know? He actually has to go back to the holding cell to take a breather before he can express his emotions. Wallace would set him OFF honey….
November 30th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Baier gave Mitt a burning in his bosom.
I appreciate Baier taking him off script for a few moments.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
123 – Funny? You have an odd sense of humor.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
119,
That is astounding analysis! But a third party candidate is a vote for Obama, because presumably the third party candidate will be taking votes from the Republican and not Obama. Even a percent or two of the vote would be decisive if the general election polls continue to reflect the race as being close.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
123 – Before you worried about Newt beating Romney and therefore turned the hate beam his way, even you must have gotten a kick out of when Newt put that miserable MSNBC wench in her place.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Fight the power, Mitt. Wait, you are the power! Wait, no…..so confusing.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Hate beam. Awesome. Wish I had powers.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
123. St,
Fight the power, Mitt!
would make the greatest
bumpersticker EVER! LOL!
November 30th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
123:
Uncomfortable for the moderator perhaps if Mitt shows up ready for battle.
Either way, Mitt needs to start defending himself more forcefully. His opponents have essentially decided they can cut and paste whatever they want and no one is going to push back at them. Romney needs to start calling people out.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
#127 Some disaffected Democrats would vote third party but not Republican.
Give them a rebel to rally around.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
129 – The Rombots think the big powerful Murdoch machine is “the power.”
Everyone else thinks Mitt is. I guess it’s all about perception.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
FIght the POWER! I love it. ROMNEY/CHRISTIE 2012 FIGHT THE POWER
So awesome guys, we are geniuses. LOVE IT! Dyna-MITE! Flippin sweet.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
133,
Maybe….it all depends on who the third party candidate would be. If it is any of the frequently mentioned names, then I seriously doubt that would happen.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Murdoch is the power. We are all the power. No, Mitt is the power. So confusing.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
135.
Yes!! I agree!!
Two Northeasterners.
What could go wrong, Einstein?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
63 Jax,
Spot on. I doubt Fox will ever play the Ron Paul ad and disect it as they did with the DNC ad against Romney and I actually think it deserves Fox’s attention more than the DNC ad.
Here’s why. If Fox is in the tank for Republicans, why would they want to promote the work of the opponent? However, as THE place for news on the Republican race, it is appropriate to air how the contenders are challenging one another.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
138 FIGHT THE POWER EINSTEIN!!! I thought you couldn’t improve on it. Keep it up.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
128 – She asked a fair question and he refused to answer it. I wasn’t impressed at all. It is just his fallback mechanism for when he gets a question he doesn’t have a good answer for. What is amazing to me is how many fall for it and think he is a genius.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Jax, does anything at all in life ever impress you?
I mean, besides Mitt Romney….?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
132 – Exactly right. Romney has let that go on for way too long. I think it has been a major mistake that could cost him the nomination. He should have been pushing back on the lies a long time ago. No need to go on the offensive, but he hasn’t done any defense at all.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
142 – Were you impressed by his evasion?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
I’ll bet he’s impressed by yours and Smack’s awesome bumper sticker ideas. THey are SO AWESOME.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Romney dodged a couple questions in the Baier interview, in particular what to do with 11 million illegal immigrants. What has gotten attention so far is Romney’s histrionics. Some of the substance is a problem as well.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
140.
Two Massachusettians: A Mitt Romney/Barney Franks ticket!!
Fight the Pink Power!!
November 30th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I am unable to write a post without smiley faces, exclamation points, unsubstantiated claims and hyperbole. Again, I can’t help it.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
I just wasted 20 minutes of my time wading through this pathetic thread. Soj, CR, and Casuist, please tell us when your shift at DNC headquarters is over so we can have a real conversation. The last election was much more fun, more analysis, less personal attacks. Your constant Mitt-bashing is growing tiresome. The fact that you can’t say anything good about Mitt or even about the other candidates shows how petty your opposition is. If you can’t add anything of value you shouldn’t be commenting. Period.
Something needs to be done. When commenters who don’t even like Mitt like MWS stop having much of anything to say because they are drowned out by the Mitt lynch mob, we are in trouble.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
142 – I was impressed how he knocked her down from her prissy pedestal. If nothing else, her derisive attitude towards the entire field dictated that she deserved that.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
#147 – Romney did promise to go all the way for gays (not sure he meant with Barney, but he was liberal then so who knows).
November 30th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
#77 Sir David,
I think Kathleen Parker does a far better job of answering the question of Romney’s abortion position change than he’s ever done himself. Why he can’t outline this story as thoughtfully as Kathleen does is hard for me to understand. The only explanation is that Romney’s a very guarded person about his feelings and what makes him tick so maybe he isn’t willing to allow people to delve that deeply into the inner person.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behind-romneys-change-of-heart-on-abortion/2011/11/29/gIQAi1CFAO_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
November 30th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
That’s how you can tell when the Rombots are having a bad day. They suggest banishment for those who disagree.
And asparagus, just about an hour or two ago you incorrectly asserted that Mitt never supported a national mandate.
You’re welcome for setting the record straight.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
147 OK now you’re just being dumb. Barney is purple.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
146.
Yep. Willard stammered and stuttered long and hard on that question…only to finally refuse to answer it.
Go Romney!
November 30th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
So Pablozed hates whites, hispanics, AND gays. This is a conservative site, dude. No haters allowed.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
This week freakin’ rocks!!
November 30th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
151 – “All the way” or not, Romney has whored himself out to multiple audiences.
Whether or not he ever made the jump from rhetorical to literal I don’t know.
But then again, this is all fair to ponder. Especially since just yesterday the boo hooing asparagus just suggested that Newt was worse than Jerry Sandusky, the guy who anally raped a ten-year old on the PSU campus.
And now he has the audacity to whine when Mitt is on the receiving end of criticism.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Pablo – he said more on Gay rights. No talk at the time centered around gay marriage. Just out of curiosity, do you think that gays should have civil unions? Not gay marriage, civil unions. Do you think that they should be allowed to visit eachother in hospital settings, etc. In other words, do you think they should be allowed the same rights as any other American (marriage is not a right)?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Mitt never supported a national mandate, by the way. That would make a great bumper sticker for you brainstormers.
That is because unlike Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann and others, Mitt ROmey does have a rudimentary plus understanding of the US Constitution. He is studied and smart, in spite of his OUTRAGEOUS ANGER PROBLEM.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
#156 – Your lack of Christian faith shows.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
160 – Actually you’re wrong. Unless you want to call John Judis, a respected columnist for The New Republic a liar.
http://www.nationalreview.com/primary-event/266982/94-romney-said-he-d-vote-health-care-plan-federal-mandate-katrina-trinko
November 30th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
160.
Now, now…you were doing so well. No lies allowed.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
158 – oh, get this guys. Romney has “whored” himself out. Forget about Cain. Forget about Gingrich and his multiple wives problem. No. ROMNEY has whored himself out. THis is SO rich. AND he has an anger problem. ANd he has no passion. Can you believe this guy. Then there’s the religion problem, when he’s not out a-whoring.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
#159 – I favor civil unions, yes, and maybe could be convinced to support gay marriage. I don’t care what other people do if it doesn’t infringe on me.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
163 – then you and two of your friends here are breaking your own rules. So sorry.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
#164 – He certainly has. To Planned Parenthood, to gay groups, and more recently to Wall Street.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
You should care, Pablozed. Make caring, not war. And no whoring. ROmney was out a-whoring, says your friend. Outrageous these revelations.
Family man, good grief. What does he take us for. His outRAGEOUS anger problem and then there’s the whoring, and plundering. This man DARES to be president. He belongs in an institution.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
#149 Asparagus,
I agree. I would welcome thoughtful debate, conversation, and even legitimate crticism of Romney (or anyone else running) but the non-stop mindless bashing and name calling that happens here by about five different individuals adds nothing useful to the conversation. Rather, it serves as an impediment to intelligent dialogue.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Dennis Miller tonight: “Bawney Fwank should shape up because eventually that Freddie Mac n cheese makes your Fannie Mae drop” #oreilly
November 30th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Nah, just not in the White House.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
167 – Don’t forget to pro-lifers AND pro-choicers.
164 – Romney absolutely has passion. It’s just limited to that which benefits his own political ambitions. Everything else is negotiable.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Gingrich should be installed as president IMMEDIATELY. HE controls his anger. He is pacific. He does NOT talk back to Brett Baier. He does not go a-whoring, at least not publicly. He does not promote a national mandate, nor has he ever. And he loves gays, when he should, and doesn’t when he should not. He. Should. Be. President.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
At least our criticisms of Romney are on policy. Rombots criticize other candidates for their appearance, medical conditions, and private lives. And are never censured.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
172 – AND!!!! JUST IN!!! ROmney whores, has anger, AND PASSION, AND only cares about his own political ambition AND personal gain! We! Are! THE 99%!!! EVeryone with me now, ROmney! Is! The 1%!!!
Could there be anything more awful revealed yet tonight!? ANything at all…..
November 30th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Pablo – so why do you take issue for him supporting gay rights??? Again, not gay marriage, he has never supported that (is not a right)? He has never said that he has changed on that view. Mitt’s beliefs are much more nuanced than are good for a sound bite, but that in my opinion is a strength not a weakness. He actually studies them out and understands them before he makes blanket statements.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
173 – Glad to have you aboard. Any vote for Ginrich that denies Romney is okie dokie with me.
I’d prefer to support Gingrich because he’s actually made contributions to conservatism, in balancing budgets, reforming welfare and keeping Clinton in check and forcing him to move rightward.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
173.
Welcome aboard.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
So rich. Then Pablezed says this. “At least our criticisms of Romney are…….on….POL-icy. On policy he says.
Thank you. It has been so enriching. But now, I must leave this alternate universe. Thank you so, so much.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
153 you have me confused with someone else. I haven’t posted since around 5:30 central time.
But since you’re so sure he advocated for a national mandate, I’m sure you have a youtube clip to back that up. Or maybe a newspaper article with a direct quote. Maybe in a book he wrote? Or in public speech? Otherwise, I’m not buyin’ what your sellin’.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
It’s like you already know what the Democrats are going to effectively do to Romney should he turn things around and make it to the general election.
I’m sure he appreciates the heads up while he watches from his Ivory Towers.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Cain/Newt ’12 but the reverse works, too.
Romney can run for something in Utah.
He’s got 95% support there for some reason.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
180 – The fact that his campaign issued a statement and didn’t deny any of it ought to be convincing, if you’re too paranoid to take John Judis at his word.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
You. Are. The 99%. Romney. Is. The 1% AND….this just in, he has made NO contribution to balancing budgets, reforming welfare, and he has never, ever, KEPT CLINTON IN CHECK. Never forced Clinton to move RIGHTWARD. Stunning his negligence. And out a-whoring. Whoops! ROmney slipped into a-whoring. Such a dangerous man. Never curbed Clinton’s liberalism, like Gingrich did. Never stopped communism in it’s tracks, like Gingrich did. His wife NEVER wrote a child’s book on the COnsititution like Callista did. She. Is. The 1% dirty capitalist. But Newt is pristine.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
151 – Oh, so you are a homophobe? That explains a lot.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Liz left? Darn it!
November 30th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Jaaron, My qualm is that Romney flip flopped on gays. He was for gays serving openly, now opposes it.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
#186 – Probably went looking for her brain.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
181 – right, and Gingrich with his millions made from lobbying health care giants and Fannie and Freddie is going to be revered as a hero by the populace. Did you know that a majority( i believe that on poll had it at 53%) of those polled in these recent polls do not know about Newt’s past. That goes against all the pundits saying that his pasts are a known commodity.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
183. Oh. I thought you found it on Wikipedia. But if John “Judis” said it, and Romney didn’t deny any of it, that’s credible.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
188.
Oh, go eat a truffle, Jax!
November 30th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Liz is still here! Just my – her – computer melted down and she has to use another one! Still here I say.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Pablozed meanie meanie meanie! YOu and Romney have a problem in common. Angry birds.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
160 – No, didn’t you know that one liberal reporter claimed that Romney told him 17 years ago that he would have grudgingly voted for a health care bill that happened to include a mandate. Clearly Romney is a HUGE advocate of a national individual mandate, despite the fact that he was not asked directly about the mandate at the time he said he would grudgingly support the Republican plan that included one. Newt’s 17 years of continued advocacy of a national mandate that he only officially abandoned about a month ago is nothing compared to Romney’s support of a national mandate.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Just spent some time on Hotair. You know its getting awful here when Hotair becomes a friendlier place for a Rombots. If anybody is listening, the harrassment we are suffering goes beyond what should be accepted in a site that tolerates back and forth of political dialogue.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
190 – Well since “1 percent Willard” never bothered to deny it, I don’t see what the problem is.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
174 – LOL … you should do standup.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Guys, I am asking you to help me go viral with the Ron Paul ad about Gingrich. Link it on facebook, email it to family & friends, etc. The public does not know who Newt really is nor what he has done. Seriously, I am asking you to join my small grassroots effort to educate the public because we know the media will not do its part. Who will join me in getting this ad out to the masses?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Don’t hate Romney because he’s beautiful. This is not high school. This is your nation at risk. Yes, I’m asking you to grow up. Not necessarily today, but sometime in the next 8 -10 months or so. Say yes to competence.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
177 – Yep, Romney has never done anything conservative in his life. Of wait, he balanced an out of control budget too? No way. Not Romney. In Massachusetts? Lies. All lies I tell you.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
I will join you Greg! End the fed! I knew Ron Paul was in this for a reason!
November 30th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
194 – Hey man. Your boy said he’d “vote” for it.
When the votes are counted, “begrudgingly” doesn’t change the tally.
If an “abortion doctor” terminates a pregnancy begrudgingly he still termintes a pregnancy. Right?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
#195 – Don’t worry, your misery and Mitt’s will be over soon. He could always spare his family the humiliation and make an excuse to drop out even sooner.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
195.
Asparagus,
Try Free Republic next. Be sure to mention Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Pablo – I wasn’t aware that he wanted to reverse don’t ask don’t tell. when did he say that?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Jax, you are challenging me as sarcasm queen. Very worthy. I almost ripped you in a comment you were so convincing.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
177 – And he didn’t have the tech bubble and Clinton tax hikes to help him? No way. Everyone knows Romney is the spawn of Satan and Newt is a Saintly Conservative. Impossible. None of it is true. Lalalalalala.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
198.
[...YAWN...]
November 30th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
187 – More lies
November 30th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Mr. Zed – as soon as someone comes forward and says she has been Mitt’s mistress for over a decade, I am sure out of decency, he will drop out. Until then…..sorry suckers! We will have a competence option. DO the right thing.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
198. I accept the challenge and will put it up on face book immediately. Will email it out in the morning to 50-60 friends. Okay, who is next to help out?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
I wouldn’t say spawn of Satan.
But you’re getting warm.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Spawn of SATAN!? YOu are good.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Oh, so now the RomNots are part of the Occupy movement? Surprises every day!
November 30th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
(CR thinks you’re legit. You are good.)
November 30th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
211 – Let me. Ok. Sent.
Damnit! That was the DNC Mitt v. Mitt video.
Now THAT is a shame…
November 30th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Greg, I am on board. Logging into Facebook.com right now.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Occupy had a movement all right. 200 lbs. of it. I call that biological warfare, and I DON’T think they should be tried before anything other than a military tribunal.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
202 – Really? And what is your source on that? A liberal reporter without a direct quote? And what part of the question that he was asked included the word “mandate”?
You can do better than that, I know it. You are looking like a desperate fool.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
This site might as well be renamed Race4oragainstRomney.com. None of the other candidates are ever discussed. Its always why we hate Romney. Its getting really boring. Some of you need to get out of your mother’s basement and meet a girl. You can’t possibly have a job or have children if you post 24/7. At least your therapist will be making some money helping you deal with your Romney obsession.
It would be nice to hear from supporters of Santorum or Bachmann or Perry, if they exist.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
SO I love you guys, thanks for making me feel noticed and needed. Another day another dollar and keep fighting the good fight. God bless Ron Paul and good night. For reals this time.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Be Afraid Says:
November 30th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Don’t hate Romney because he’s beautiful.
==
Now, now, Liz. Calm down. Breathe slower….
November 30th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Ci2eye
Thanks for the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behind-romneys-change-of-heart-on-abortion/2011/11/29/gIQAi1CFAO_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
A great read for anyone who wants to know the truth about that flip flipper
November 30th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
ZZZZZzzzzzzz……(how’s that for slow? Shhhh. Good night.)
November 30th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Night, Liz. And don’t be afraid next time
November 30th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
216 – You would stoop to such lies. We all know you are just a liberal troll anyways. You don’t fool anyone.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
We don’t want any biological warfare where the “Occupiers” camp out in the big cities, like New York. After all, someone could get hurt. Corporations are people too.
Cue the swooning of the Independent voters.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Honestly, how’d you know I’m Liz? YOu are good. If you ever decided to leave the dark side, believe me, there’d be a place for you. With your skills? Shoots.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Well first one of the Rombots says Mitt is worthy of worship and now we have one saying he’s beautiful.
That’s a mighty tightly knit community of Rombots we’ve got here.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
No Sojourner, animals are people too. They deserve drivers licenses and housing. Dork.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
220 – And this is the most pro-Romney politics site there is. The others are pure hell holes.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Ok. Sleep tight. Don’t let the latest poll numbers bite.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
As Perry says, OOPS. G’night. I mean it. Stop the meanness so I can retire.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Well someone better warn Mitt, lest he get out his small varmint gun.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
227 – Only a liberal would disagree with Mitt’s statement about corporations. We all know your true colors. You can go back to The Daily Kos now.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
220,
Well there is a reason why their poll numbers are so low….I don’t think I’ve ever met a Santorum supporter. As far as your victim complex goes, it’s really quite simple. Romney is the most compelling figure in this race. It is all about him, because he is seen by quite a few as the only electable candidate and by quite a few others as the candidate they cannot support under any circumstances. I think we all know that no matter who the name is on the other side of the fight card, this is going to be all about Romney. It doesn’t have to be good or bad, it is just the reality of this race. Welcome the criticism and understand that it equates to relevancy. Long way to go still…
November 30th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Gaultier had a front page freak out that fried the part of his brain that governs proper paragraphing. What a mess. Someone get the smelling salts.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
228,
You have a distinctive style…very distinctive
November 30th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Sojourner tonight has slammed Romney for being rich and for saying that taxing corporations is the same as taxing people.
Beware of liberals in sheep’s clothing.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
229,
Romney is not boring! He evokes strong emotions from people
November 30th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Mitt for Brains was quoting Marx. It was Marx who said that capitalism confronts us with relations among things that are really relations among people.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
231.Jaxemer11 Says:
November 30th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
“And this is the most pro-Romney politics site there is. The others are pure hell holes.”
===
Amen. That’s why I love it.
And Kavon is so nice to you Rombots, you don’t even know it!
November 30th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
The list goes on and on.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Antiwar Radio: Interviews ACLU’s Christopher Anders about McCain-Levin End of America Act
Debate is going on throughout this whole week. Call your representatives.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Only jax in his characteristic inability to judge anything anytime in any way that doesn’t involve, “How does this help Mitt” would be so unable to grasp the concept of criticizing the way a message is telegraphed rather than the message itself.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Let us count the ways….
November 30th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
O man. I really got to go.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Four Senators Push For Secret Interrogation Methods Beyond Army Field Manual Tactics
The list of torture advocates include Freshman senator Kelly Ayote who should be made into a one term senator
November 30th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
236 I’m not a victim, just bored. The anti-Romney is boring. Plus so much of the so-called criticism is on what he said 8 years ago or whether he’s a real man because he peels the skin off the chicken. Now he’s super-angry and unfit to be President. Now he’s a squish who won’t stand up for Obama. No discussion of what’s in his book, or where he intends to take the country. Now we’re talking about whether a cable television interview where he gets testy is going to destroy his candidacy. Now we’re talking about national polls and whether Romney is any more of a piece of toast than he was the day before. Its all soooo boring. Now we are arguing about whether the irrational hatred of Romney is attributed to fear and loathing over religion. I can’t stand any more!
Criticism implies a back and forth discussion. 90% of the ABRs are insulting to both the candidate and his supporters. I do not enjoy being insulted by fellow Republicans.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Here is the link to Paul’s ad for thoise of you who want to email it or put it on your facebook page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY
November 30th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Oooh I’m getting a bit testy. Must be some of that Romney rage we are hearing so much about, lol.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Yes, only the problem for Willard is that he is still incapable of eking out a victory in a two person contest. Without Perry he needed Cain to remain in place to divide conservative votes away from Gingrich—only he didn’t know he needed Cain until Cain fell from grace with the sea which caused Cain voters to flee to Gingrich which caused Gingrich to break out in 3 of the 4 early states when in 2008 McCain had to bet everything he had on New Hampshire. As weak as Gingrich may or may not be he can always run circles around Willard.
Once again Willard is stranded without bus fare because he is never in command of his own destiny. This is because he has no natural base of support.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
252 Wonderful. I think you’ve established that. Now please move on.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
I thought the name on the other side of the card was Obama? How is that forgotten?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Kudos to Ron Paul for exposing Gingrich. Unfortunately, the ad takes more than 2 minutes to do it, so it can’t be plastered over Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. So it needs to be a grass roots effort.
I’m in.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
“Two hours after I’m sworn in as President and by the time the Obama’s land in Chicago, I will have forty percent of Obama’s government dismantled.”
- NEWT GINGRICH!
November 30th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
249 – That has really been bugging me lately to. There is literally no discussion of the issues that are the most important right now. Instead we are fighting over immigration and whether someone said they might vote for a health care plan that people don’t like 17 years ago.
This is a make or break election, in my opinion. If we don’t get it right there are serious consequences that will last for far longer than four years. Our economy is stagnant and possibly on the verge of another recession.
If you don’t think Romney is the man for the job, then so be it. But please take this election seriously and think about who is best to pull our country out of the mess we are facing. It is the most important election we have had in decades. Probably since the 1980 election.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
253,
Not the undercard. It will be Romney vs. Gingrich or hell maybe even Romney vs. Huntsman. There is a whole month left to go. The way these guys at the top flame out it could be anybody
November 30th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
256 – LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
November 30th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
BTW,
If Gingrich gets the nomination…..which won’t happen…..there will be several 3rd Party movements. Trump probably will run if that’s the case. Bloomberg might. But Ron Paul, as suggested by his brilliant ad against Gingrich, certainly will.
Is it betrayal of the Party to vote 3rd Party when the Party’s nominee doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
256 – So absurd. And how is he going to do that? By tyrannical order?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
261,
Newt is known for his rhetorical flourish, to put it kindly.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
Are you a Bolshevik? Otherwise, how do you “betray” a party in our system? You can vote however you want. If Willard were our nominee I would vote 3rd party or write in teledude’s name or something. Is this a betrayal? Betrayal of what?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
Dave,
Speaking of Ron Paul..
Today on his radio show Glenn Beck and his staff declared that Ron Paul is the “earmark king”, and labeled Paul a hypocrite.
And now we know.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
261. No. Executive order.
http://conservatives4newt.blogspot.com/2011/11/video-newt-gingrich-on-hannity.html
November 30th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
260,
If someone runs third party the GOP will lose anyway, especially if Ron Paul is that person.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Gingrich could do it. Willard would be too busy explaining the nuances of his inauguration speech by way of flat denials of what the text of his speech actually said.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:56 pm
Give it up – Romney was not and is not a frontrunner.
For six years and millions of dollars later he still cannot poll higher than 25% (and dropping)which means 75% DO NOT WANT!
When 3/4 of the Republican Party does not want you then your chances of winning the GOP nomination is similar to a snowball’s chance in hell.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
264 – You do know that Glenn Beck hates Gingrich too, right? He endorsed Bachmann. You should get back on her train.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
265 – And where does he get the constitutional authority to do that?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Or does the constitution not matter to Tea Party Mitt-haters anymore?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
I love Bachmann
November 30th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
268 – 25% is more than anyone else is consistently getting. It is more than Mama Bear Palin ever came close to.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
267,
Maybe so, I’m just not sure that Gingrich could win in the general. Obama has the money and the resources to tear Gingrich apart. If there is any truth to the idea that the voters don’t really know who Newt is, then by November of 2012 you can be sure that will be remedied. Obama also has the media and their various propoganda machines armed and ready to go. Newt’s big flaw is electability, not for the primary but for the general. Can he get elected?
December 1st, 2011 at 12:00 am
267 – So much for the principled constitutionalist.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:01 am
This site has some serious issues with loading. It takes literally a couple minutes to finish every time.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:03 am
Newt’s up by 2 over Obama.
Obama is unellectable in that case.
We don’t have to settle for Obama-lite Romney who currently trails Obama by 4.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:04 am
276.
No problems here, Jax.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:07 am
270. Well in case you are a clueless Rombot, let me fist explain that Obama has instituted most of his agenda by Executive order. Everything from the dozens of ‘Czars’ he’s appointed to the ‘Dream Act” which could not make it’s way through congress.
Newt was specifically speaking about rescinding all of Obama’s Executive orders within an hour or two of being sworn in.
These are exactly the same type of broad conservative principles he he advocated when he put together the national coalition to take back control of the House for the first time in my lifetime…
at exactly the same time Romney was handing out pink pamphlets for gay rights and swearing to never limit a woman’s right to choose an abortion, while distancing himself from Reagan and the conservative movement in total.
So yeah, that is very appealing.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:07 am
Not that you would have anyway. Willard himself has seen to his own humiliating defeat just by being himself.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:07 am
“Two hours after I’m sworn in as President and by the time the Obama’s land in Chicago, I will have forty percent of Obama’s government dismantled.”
This is the kind of impossible promise candidates with no character like to make. Newt has a lot of ideas, but they’re mostly Utopian. The works he’s directly responsible for accomplishing generally involve political corruption and personal infidelity.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:08 am
You repeat yourself.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:09 am
Gingrich’s Inside Track with Iowa Evangelicals
December 1st, 2011 at 12:09 am
To rescind an executive order only takes an executive order, you super genius.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:10 am
Herman Cain – America is Ready Fight on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbwR7aSTcGY
December 1st, 2011 at 12:10 am
279 – LOL … you just pulled that out of your ass. Obama did not grow the size of government by 40% with executive order. You guys really need to go back to civics class.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:11 am
284 – LOL … what executive orders constitute 40% of the federal government? You guys are cute.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:12 am
Gingrich’s most persuasive line with the Iowa Evangelical pulpit-pounding bible-thumping tent-meeting street-preaching Jesus-people: I am NOT-Romney.
Amen. Testify. Can I get a witness?
December 1st, 2011 at 12:16 am
279. “These are exactly the same type of broad conservative principles he he advocated when he put together the national coalition to take back control of the House for the first time in my lifetime…”
Taking back the House wasn’t about saving conservatism for Newt. It was about personal power and aggrandizement. It was a movement that started due to Reagan’s massive success and the dissatisfaction after two years of Clinton. Newt was eager to get his name on the “Contract with America,” but he didn’t write it. He was certainly willing to jump on the band wagon for a free ride though.
And since you like to bring up Romney’s actions in 1994… what was Newt doing back when Romney was promising to conserve a woman’s right to choose? He was boning his colleague’s aid (among other women), which eventually led to his second divorce and his third marriage. But up until getting caught, he was sure a strong advocate for moral behavior in DC, bashing the Dems’ disgusting immorality every chance he got.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:17 am
Jax, perhaps it’s past your bedtime…or you need a remedial reading class
Newt did not say ‘the federal Government’
He said “Obama’s Government”…the 40% of all the Hell he’s unleashed without even going through congress….meaning Obama’s Executive orders.
I linked the video…all you have to do is listen.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:18 am
If Gingrich wants to roll back the size of government he can start by killing all the programs he implemented and advocated (i.e., lobbied) for. Starting with the massive Medicare-Part D.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:18 am
No, he didn’t, but 40% of his own innovations in office can be reversed by executive order, because they are the product of executive order.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:19 am
290 – Wow! This just keeps getting better and better. Do you even know what an executive order is?
December 1st, 2011 at 12:20 am
284.
Rescinding O’s orders won’t dismantle 40% of O’s government. Making that statement is just a self aggrandizing shout out that means nothing. O’s government has grown through legislation primarily — Stimulus, OCare, IRS, Gov Agencies, etc. Newt will eliminate (like every other R candidate) the Czar’s, their staffs, and that’s about it. Small potatoes, but Newt makes it sound grand. And untrue.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:20 am
It is an oft-used Willardist tactic to deliberately misstate your position to support their straw man arguments.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:20 am
292 – That doesn’t even make sense. I am starting to wonder if you even went to college.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:21 am
This, my brothers and sisters, is a straw man argument as no one ever made such a claim.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:21 am
290 – Listen to what? Hyperbole and lies?
December 1st, 2011 at 12:21 am
297 – Huh? teledude just did and just claimed that Newt did. Stay on message!
December 1st, 2011 at 12:23 am
You know what doesn’t make sense? RomneyCare, with all its new rules, new taxes, its exchanges, and its mandates, all of it functionally identical to ObamaCare. Do you know what does make sense? Rescinding Obama’s innovations in office—czars, net neutrality rules, and other end-runs around congress—by way of executive order, since they were the product of executive order.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:23 am
291. “If Gingrich wants to roll back the size of government he can start by killing all the programs he implemented and advocated (i.e., lobbied) for. Starting with the massive Medicare-Part D.”
Don’t forget the massively increased staff of the bloated, bailed-out Freddie Mac.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:25 am
No. You’re either a blithering idiot knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing slack-jawed rube or you’re deliberately misstating teledude’s position. One or the other. I’ve already made my decision.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:26 am
288, Some Evangelicals would put the virtue of marriage over the virtue of Not being Romney. It’s that strange fondness some of us have for something called the Ten Commandments…
December 1st, 2011 at 12:26 am
Newt’s kinda like the iPhone of candidates.
He’s got an app for that!
December 1st, 2011 at 12:27 am
300. “You know what doesn’t make sense? RomneyCare… Do you know what does make sense? Rescinding Obama’s innovations in office—czars, net neutrality rules, and other end-runs around congress—by way of executive order…”
Agreed. But that doesn’t change the fact that all of those things constitute a TINY percentage of the growth of government under Obama. Newt & his 40% are about as realistic as the courts he’d set up to determine the residency status of the 12-20M illegals in America today.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:30 am
302. Go read 256 moron and pull the red herrings out of your arse.
“Two hours after I’m sworn in as President and by the time the Obama’s land in Chicago, I will have forty percent of Obama’s government dismantled.” – NEWT GINGRICH!
December 1st, 2011 at 12:33 am
Not 40% of the federal Govefnment.
40% of the New Hell Obama has saddled us with since he was sworn in …
he is the Executive Order dictator who has learned to circumvent congress unless he wants to make a political fight out of something.
The guy is as evil a president we have ever had…and going into battle against him with a slippery moderate that no one can trust who is afraid to make a bold statement for fear it might not ‘test’ well in the focus group is NOT a winning strategy.
I’ll take Newt following him around the country debunking every speech Obama makes until he agrees to the three hour real debates Newt wants….at which time Newt will fillet and de-bone Obama like a fish.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:36 am
Yes, but we’re not talking about the growth of government in general under Obama, which if you include ObamaCare, which is functionally identical to RomneyCare, is immense by orders of magnitude beyond any other administration since the so-called Great Society initiatives of the LBJ era. We’re talking about Obama’s government, the part he innovated himself, the czars, and the legislation by executive order.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:37 am
The little ones don’t get this. They’ve become fixated.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:39 am
307.
And I never said “40% of the federal government.” I was referring to the same government (newly created under Obama) that Newt & you were.
Understanding that, Newt is a self aggrandizing panderer plain and simple. Obama’s government, when considering agencies allowed to grow or that grew directly through legislation he signed into law is a huge number that dwarfs the employees he’s brought on via executive order or as part of his staff. The IRS alone has increased by 10-20k employees under Obama. There is no possible way that Newt will dismantle 40% without some serious legislative help. To claim it is plainly dishonest pandering or another one of Newt’s Utopian delusions.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:44 am
308. LOL. OK, so we’re not talking about the new jobs Obama gave a thumbs up to from legislation he signed? We’re narrowly talking about new additional positions O created via executive order? Well, Newt clearly said the line for a bigger pander cheer than that data would give. And if that’s what he really meant, why is he keeping 60% for longer than 2 hrs?
December 1st, 2011 at 12:44 am
Yes, only Gingrich didn’t mean that. He meant what Obama had created by means of administrative fiat through executive order. This is what can be rescinded immediately also by executive order.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:46 am
Cain/Newt would be the ideal ticket. Cain the outsider who negates the upcoming left’s race strategy — and Newt being Newt in the sniper position — shadowing Mr.Obama all over the country.
It would be fun to watch.:)
Would Herman Cain Be Newt Gingrich’s Running Mate?
December 1st, 2011 at 12:48 am
312. “Yes, only Gingrich didn’t mean that.”
I didn’t watch the interview. I only read tele’s quote. The quote suggests a much more significant action than merely eliminating a tiny 40% of O’s czar positions. However, perhaps in context it was clear he was merely speaking about czars. That said, why would you keep any of them?
December 1st, 2011 at 12:49 am
288.
Hallelujah, brother!
December 1st, 2011 at 12:50 am
313.
Brilliant move by Newt. Seriously. Obviously he’d never consider Cain at this point, but he’s very intelligent to be so positive about Cain as Cain’s followers are currently looking around for a legitimate candidate.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:57 am
You answered that part yourself. This is the part that requires acts of Congress to unwind because it was created e.g. by means of legislation.
DUH.
December 1st, 2011 at 1:21 am
307 – LOL … I’m sure that is exactly what he meant. Even if it was, 40% is hyperbolic to the extreme. Do you have any idea how much Obama has grown the government?
December 1st, 2011 at 1:23 am
312 – Oh, so now he was only talking about 40% of the small portion of Obama’s government that was created as a result of executive order. That makes me feel much better about Newt. What a hero!
December 1st, 2011 at 1:25 am
317 – Wait. I thought he was only talking about the portion of Obama’s government that was created by executive order. Now he has to get legislative approval to revoke the other 60% of the executive orders? That doesn’t make any sense.
December 1st, 2011 at 3:09 am
On 10/14/11, Newt spoke to a large crowd at a Tea Party event in Dallas:
If elected president, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he plans to have 50 to 200 executive orders ready to sign into law shortly after the swearing-in ceremony on Inauguration Day 2013.
While he’s not yet sure what all those orders will be, he said that by the Obama family arrives at their destination, “we will have dismantled most of (Democrat Barack Obama’s) government.”
December 1st, 2011 at 4:10 am
CR……#313
You don’t know much about politics if you think Gingrich wants Cain as a running mate!
Gingrich knows Cain is over… Gingrich is just a phoney political opportunist who wants Cains support when he drops out….I’ve never seen Gingrich nice to anybody unless it benefits him.
December 1st, 2011 at 7:15 am
MEM,
Sorry I missed your question.
On annulments, I really don’t know a whole lot about it. I know they are more common than they used to be, but there is a process, and a lot of lax Catholic moan that it isn’t “easy” enough.
But as a general rule, the Church is not well known for accommodating modern sensibilities.
Women priests? Can’t happen.
Birth control? Forbidden.
Married clergy? Not for the last 1000 years or so (in the West)
Abortion? Are you kidding?
Fornication? Porn? Sexual self-pleasuring? Nope. Nope. Nope.
Democracy in the Church? Ha!
December 1st, 2011 at 8:27 am
I’ve said it here and more than once elsewhere. If a third party jumps into the race, the door is WIDE open for Hillary Clinton to run away with it. The Democrats and a significant amount of independents will flock to her. Romney would come in 2nd, with the third party and Obama battling out for a distant 3/4 spot.
Suppose Gingrich wins the nomination and chooses Sarah Palin as his running mate? (I doubt she’d take it.) Or, perhaps, Dick Morris.
December 1st, 2011 at 8:42 am
#324 – Silly. Obama would kick Biden to the curb and give it to Hillary before he allowed that to happen.
December 1st, 2011 at 9:46 am
Good post, Dave G, and I’m pretty sure you’re right; Newt = third party fo sho. Bloomberg’s “I’ve got the seventh largest army in the world” comment is a big frakking telegraph of his intentions. If he could pick up a pro-life middle American Democrat as his runningmate, interesting things might start to happen. I should really do a post about third party movements here soon.
December 1st, 2011 at 3:04 pm
If Newt gets the nom, and a third party candidate materializes from the Bloomberg/Paul/Johnson/Trump universe, I think the GOP will find a way to get Ralph Nader to run a fourth party ticket, in essence Newtralizing the effects of the third party candidate. Could make for an interesting general election.